CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LEARNING AND TEACHING
2.2 T HEORETICAL P ERSPECTIVES ON R EADING
2.2.5 Reading as socially situated practice
Phonemic awareness instruction;
Phonics instruction;
Fluency instruction;
Vocabulary instruction;
Text comprehension instruction.
While there is no disagreement that these are critical aspects of learning to read, the hegemonic conclusions of these government-sponsored reports in singling out these ―Big Five‖ for attention, have been criticised from many quarters. The NRP report has been criticised for its narrowly focused research review, which not only excluded qualitative studies in favour of experimental research with both an experimental and a control group, but also divided up research studies that it did consider in terms of different reading skills, in effect supporting a skills-based approach to reading (Weaver, 2002, p. 258). NRP panel member Tim Shanahan (2003) lists 20 topics the NRP considered but ultimately did not study. Michael Pressley (2001) and Jim Cunningham (2001) have also noted the narrow list of topics included in the NRP report. Allington suggests five additional ―pillars‖ of reading instruction which are supported by a substantial body of experimental research (2004; 2005), arguing that we ignore these five additional pillars at our own peril. The additional aspects of reading instruction which he identifies for attention are:
1. Providing access to interesting texts, choice and collaboration (all of which have been shown to have greater effect than phonics instruction).
2. Matching readers with appropriate texts (in other words, differentiated instruction is crucial).
3. Recognising that writing and reading have reciprocal positive effects.
4. Balancing whole class teaching with small group and side-by-side instruction.
5. Making expert tutoring available.
attention to the role of literacy in society, focusing on both the functions and form of the literacy activities of social groups and challenging the conception of literacy as a purely individual process. The social meanings and uses of literacy in different contexts (not only in the school) are of key interest, as is an awareness of power and the nature of knowledge, social class differences in the meanings and uses of literacy in these contexts and the intergenerational maintenance of such differences. The influence of social identity (class, race and gender) both on what the reader brings to the text and on how he or she interacts with the text is of interest. Of particular relevance to the development of literacy in schools has been work which examines the relationship between school literacy and non-school literacy events, particularly in the home context (Duke & Purcell-Gates, 2003; Heath, 1983;
Purcell-Gates, 1997; Wells, 1986). However, this paradigm offers little regarding the internal nature of the reading process itself.
The New Literacy Studies (NLS) group provides a key example of what Gee (n.d.) calls ―the social turn‖ away from an individual-centred view of literacy towards looking at literacy in terms of social practices and cultural contexts. Barton, Hamilton and Ivanic (2000, pp. 1-15) identify the following six characteristics of an NLS perspective on literacy.
1. Literacy is understood as a set of social practices; these are observable in events which are mediated by texts.
2. Different literacy practices are associated with different domains of life.
3. Literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relations and some literacies are more dominant, visible and influential than others.
4. Literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals and cultural practices.
5. Literacy is historically situated.
6. Literacy practices change and new ones are frequently acquired through processes of informal learning and sense making as well as formal education and training.
A key contribution of the NLS is the distinction between ―autonomous‖ and ―ideological‖
models of literacy. Traditional (―autonomous‖) views of literacy pedagogy are criticised as ―a carefully restricted project – restricted to formalised, monolingual, monocultural and rule- governed forms of language‖ (New London Group, 1996, p. 61). The argument is that this traditional view of language teaching is underpinned by the so-called ―literacy thesis‖ that advanced human cognition and cultural traditions can be attributed to literacy (see for
example Anderson, 1983; Ong, 1982). While non-alphabetic forms of ―literacy‖ are acknowledged in this traditional theoretical perspective, they are regarded as ―restricted‖
forms of literacy which cannot contribute to cognition and cultural development in the same way as alphabetic literacy.
The doyen of the Reading as Socially Situated Practice paradigm, Brian Street, proposed an
―ideological model‖ of literacy in opposition to the autonomous model.
Literacy is a social practice, not simply a technical and neutral skill; … it is always embedded in socially constructed epistemological principles. It is about knowledge: the ways in which people address reading and writing are themselves rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity and being. Literacy, in this sense is always contested, both its meanings and its practices, hence particular versions of it are always ‗ideological‘, they are always rooted in a particular world-view and a desire for a view of literacy to dominate and marginalise others. (Street, 2001, p. 7).
The concept of ―practice‖ originates in Scribner and Cole‘s highly influential ethnographic study of literacy among the Vai people in Liberia. They describe practice as ―a recurrent, goal-directed sequence of activities using a particular technology and particular systems of knowledge‖ and argue that the nature of the literacy practices ―will determine the kinds of skills (‗consequences‘) associated with literacy‖ (Scribner & Cole, 1981, p. 236).
Importantly, Scribner and Cole found that reading, writing and schooling promoted, but were not the only factors which stimulated the development of cognitive skills such as logic, abstraction, memory and communication (Scribner & Cole, 1981, p. 252).
While the NLS perspective strongly valorises out-of-school literacies, one important set of concerns of a description of the social construction of literacy relates to schooled literacy and how this links to home learning experiences. The sociologist of literacy, Cook-Gumperz (2006) argues that the 20th century international emphasis on universal literacy and universal schooling has redefined how literacy is conceptualised. Literacy is no longer a personal goal, it is now a basic human right; it is no longer just a way of storing and transmitting information, it provides the basis for other information technologies to grow; it no longer represents development for people and societies but is seen as the precondition for progress;
education and schooling no longer simply promote literacy, schooling is not possible without advanced literacy (Cook-Gumperz, 2006, p. 38). She summarises her position thus:
The purpose of schooling is to transform this commonplace literacy of contemporary society into a formal discipline of literate reasoning that takes the form of a set of technical skills. It is these technical skills that we take to be the subject of literacy tests
and literacy rates. If these technical competences become confounded with normative standards and prescriptive practices based on earlier views of literacy… then confusion over the nature of literacy as a product of schooling results. (Cook-Gumperz, 2006, p. 49) One model of the literacy process which attempts to show the interconnections between sociocultural dimensions of literacy and cognitive, linguistic, developmental dimensions is provided by Kucer and Silva (2006). Luke and Freebody (1999) propose a similar model (see practical implication section below). Kucer and Silva propose that literacy is a dynamic, multidimensional process. The reader or writer is (1) a code breaker or code maker (this is the linguistic dimension of literacy) (2) a meaning maker (the cognitive dimension) (3) a text user and text critic (sociocultural dimension) and (4) a scientist and construction worker (developmental dimension). Kucer and Silva represent these dimensions of literacy as in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Dimensions of literacy (Source: Kucer and Silva, 2006, p. 4)
At the centre of the literacy act, according to this model, is the cognitive dimension - exploration, discovery, construction and sharing of meaning (Kucer & Silva, 2006, p. 3), which always involves various mental processes and strategies e.g. predicting, revising, monitoring. This cognitive dimension transcends languages. The linguistic dimension is "the
language vehicle through which meanings are shared" (Kucer & Silva, 2006, p. 4) and involves graphophonic, syntactic and semantic dimensions. Literacy is also a social act and thus has a sociocultural dimension. The model highlights the fact that literacy events are not simply acts of individual meaning-making, but also social acts in which factors such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and cultural experiences are brought to the reading process. A fourth dimension is an ongoing developmental one, concerned with how the reader learns to become a code-breaker/code maker, meaning maker, and text user and critic.
Kucer and Silva argue that we utilise knowledge of these dimensions in a "transactive, symbiotic manner....The challenge faced by the individual is to juggle and integrate both the constraints and possibilities offered by each dimension" (Kucer & Silva, 2006, p. 4).
Implications for teaching reading
A few key implications of these theories for the teaching of reading in schools can be identified. First, the classroom should relate to real life. This means that the purposes of literacy in the classroom and the materials used should be authentic.
Another important practical outcome of this paradigm in schools is the ―pedagogy of multiliteracies‖. Here the term multiliteracies has dual meaning – it refers both to learning to read a variety of print and non-print media and to different cultural practices which impact on literacy for diverse groups in society.
A third implication of the NLS for pedagogy is to favour ―critical literacy education‖ which includes learning to negotiate ―a multiplicity of discourses‖ (New London Group, 1996) in order to produce, reproduce or transform the existing social order.
The ―four resources model‖ of teaching literacy, proposed by Luke and Freebody (1999), is widely used in Australia to provide learners with the opportunity to develop a ―family of practices‖ which are all necessary but not sufficient for literate citizens. These practices are:
Code breaker (coding competence);
Meaning maker (semantic competence);
Text user (pragmatic competence);
Text critic (critical competence).
Another practical implication of this paradigm is the focus on teaching genre (Barton, 1994;
Martin & Rose, 2005; Street, 1995). Duke and Purcell-Gates argue that genre is one way of thinking about and connecting home and school practices "because research has shown that familiarity and experience with textual forms and features enhance comprehension of printed text" (2003, p. 34).